![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
|
"the translation "to talk about kidney" sounds a bit strange to me - what about something like "the description of the kidney"" Well it sounds strange to me too, but then it is supposed to be the literal translation of nephrology, and literal translations are often a little weird. If you think "description" is better, you will have to source that I guess.
"shouldn't this be unified somehow?" Absolutely. To my mind Nephrology, Andrology, Biology and all the other -ologies, all come from logos so there needs to be some unification.
"I just copied the sentence as it is given on other pages" That's okay. I was just using the definiton on Logos where it didn't use "knowledge". Whatever logos does mean, some articles on Wikipedia have to be wrong one way or the other. Maybe this could be taken up with at a higher level to get some standardization underway? Wikipedia:WikiProject Science maybe? Deamon138 (talk) 17:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
PS. Do you really know 54 digits of Pi? Deamon138 (talk) 17:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm writing about your change of etymology on the Anthropology page. Could you please specify on the Anthropology page why you chose to take the etymology back to the Greek dependent suffix -λογία, rather than the independent noun λόγος from which the suffix is derived? This does not seem to be the convention with other pages (e.g. bionomics, economics...) where the final morpheme is etymologically traced back to a full, independent noun (e.g. νόμος). Calypygian (talk) 10:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
KDS4444 here. I am writing to express my approval of and thanks for your correction of my etymological use of "logos" on the Apiology page. My Greek is weaker than my Latin, and my sense of certainty about such things breaks down further when the two languages get used in the same scientific term. What's been done here seems like the right thing to me.--KDS4444 10:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KDS4444 (talk • contribs)
Hi there, and thank you for your recent creations! I've replied to your query over at WT:PHARM. Keep up the good work, and please don't hesitate to ask if you have any further questions. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Nice work, thanks! I've decided to nominate the article for DYK. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Exceptional Newcomer Award | |
For your excellent article creation and improvement efforts and your willingness to help out aty WP:PHARM. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC) |
Congratulations! -- RyRy (talk) 00:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. There's no clear-cut guideline on the notability of drugs; long story short, it should be assessed on a case-by-case basis. We do have articles on several compounds that didn't make it to market. One such article is Torcetrapib, which provides a good example of what you should keep in mind: torcetrapib was hailed as a major breakthrough during development, even in the popular press, and there's plenty of literature about it. Good questions to ask yourself when wondering whether a certain compound merits an article are (1) is there enough available literature to write more than a "permanent stub"? (2) did this drug have any impact despite (or even due to) termination of its development? (3) was it ever mentioned in the popular press or the general medical journals, or was it just a "blip" in the company's pipeline, reported here and there? :)
Then again, that's just my set of opinions; there's been some discussion on this in the past, and I recommend a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pharmacology/Archive 1#When does a drug become notable? and the WT:PHARM and WT:MED archives for context. You can always ask again at the projects if you have something specific in mind. I personally think there's enough for a decent write-up of tolevamer.
As for your second question: the navboxes basically provide easy navigation of the ATC system, and I only add a drug to its class navbox if it has been assigned an ATC code. Again, there's no real guideline or restriction; many navboxes, such as ((HIVpharm)) and ((Chemotherapeutic agents)), link to drugs still in development, and I don't really have a problem with that! Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for doing that. Sorry I haven't done any work on this list for a while, I've had things I've been busy with elsewhere (e.g. a GAN), but I will be back over there and helping out soon. (BTW, is it just me, or was Wikipedia just down for a while?!) Deamon138 (talk) 18:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article List of sciences ending in -logy, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((dated prod))
notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. TallNapoleon (talk) 15:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
You could just leave it - it's not doing any harm. If you still want it to be deleted then the correct place is WP:RFD, not WP:AFD. Hut 8.5 17:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
See m:Talk:SVG fonts#New fonts. I suggest you open the file in Inkscape and convert all text to paths—that's what I've been doing. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I have nominated List of sciences ending in -logy, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sciences ending in -logy. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. PHARMBOY ( moo ) ( plop ) 17:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Excellent references added to Renin-angiotensin system : ) Wisdom89 (T / C) 21:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Looks like it is indeed still in development. Anyway, Arcadian beat me to it; he's added some recent references and a chembox. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't think we have anything—but then again, I've never heard of them :) Will have to do some reading...
Unfortunately, we have many stubs on med/pharm topics that are hard to keep track of because they are missing a drugbox, sorted incorrectly (e.g. a stub on a drug tagged with ((biochemistry-stub)) instead of ((pharma-stub))), or not categorized at all, so we may already have something.Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your response, I've made several corrections as you've cited (thanks), however I feel that there are several more. The Gallery tag has issues I feel that were not adequately addressed. For one, it is fixed width meaning that people with lower resolution monitors (below 1024) will be forced to use horizontal scroll, and people with high resolution monitors will posses an unsightly blank space between the right side of the gallery and the right side of the screen. The Gallery Template (((Gallery))), however, allows for the number of columns and rows to be determined by the number of images and their widths. Furthermore, since it is a template, code maintenance and updates are easier than a tag embedded into Wikimedia's software. Most of it is for technical purposes, and perhaps I need to start bringing it to WP:Accessibility to depreciate the tag.
Also to correct the template so that the caption is not cut off, change the "lines" attribute from "1" to "2", see the gallery documentation for the rest of the attributes. I don't know what to tell for the right image, other than if we remove it, it won't be a gallery anymore. There used to be a number of images (see page history), however they were removed. ChyranandChloe (talk) 19:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea :) In "FKBP", it simply stands for "FK-506 binding protein", but the "FK" is beyond me. A lot of these prefixes are esoteric (like "R" for Janssen—no idea where that came from). Maybe one of the early papers on tacrolimus development, like PMID 2445721, has some information? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Proparacaine = proxymetacaine ;) Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I have started a discussion of categorizing pharmacology articles at WT:PHARM:CAT and would really appreciate your input. Also, could you please pass word of this discussion to any other editors you think might consider contribution to the conversation? kilbad (talk) 01:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
And what about the selected trade names, do you think those are necessary in the template? kilbad (talk) 17:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I wanted to know if you would support a recent CfD that I proposed at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_January_26#Category:Diseases_of_skin_appendages? kilbad (talk) 12:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Does Rix really reconstruct this specifically with h2? Does he say why? AFAIK there's no evidence as to which laryngeal it might have been. —Angr 22:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I wanted to know if the you would review a recent CFD I posted at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_February_21#Category:Endocrine-related_diseases_and_the_skin. I am looking to get more opinions. kilbad (talk) 04:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I replied on my talk page. kilbad (talk) 16:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I left a response to some editors' comments and am ok moving forward with the categorization of pharmacology articles at this point. I wanted to let you know in case you wanted to help assist with this re/categorization. kilbad (talk) 17:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Would you help me outline the third and fourth level ATC-mirroring dermatology categories at WP:PHARM:CAT? I would like to get a working outline before I move forward. kilbad (talk) 00:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey, Please make sure Merck does not go deleting info on "Telcagepant" as I will keep looking. I took part in that study and have personal knowledge that the info has not been publicly announced yet, so they are trying to protect their stock/cover it up as long as possible..
Sydnicans —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sydnicans (talk • contribs) 01:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I will have to scan a document stating that this is in fact what is happening. it is not disputed info, merck is simply looking for their stock not to go down. there is no ambiguity about why the study was stopped. Sydnicans (talk) 17:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi! Just curious whether the change you made to Boldenone follows a precedent on en.wiki, because MOS:BOLD discourages such use except in article titles. -- Timberframe (talk) 14:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
My reading of that sentence, in its context, is that it applies where a proper name, which forms part of the article's title, appears for the first time in the article. In the article under discussion, the article's name is Boldenone and I'm querying the conversion to boldface of the tradenames associated with it. WP:MOSMED#Drugs puts the BAN name in bold with trade names following in paranthesis; WP:MOSMED#Naming conventions has an example of a proprietary name in parenthesis, and this doesn't use boldface. I've no strong feelings here, and I'm really looking for evidence of a precedent with which we can be consistent. -- Timberframe (talk) 15:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
"It's the way it is done on most drug pages" sounds like a consensual precedent to me :). Anyway, let's see what guidance WT:PHARM can offer. Thanks for your answers and you efforts. -- Timberframe (talk) 16:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
You have done some very nice work with that new ATC template! ---kilbad (talk) 14:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry I left you yesterday without a word. I realised pretty suddenly I need some sleep ... at least a bit sometimes ... I will read your last edits and post my vote sometime today. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 06:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Yours is a very good wording. I hope my chart doesn't ruin the clarity of the page, but I wanted a more extensive example. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 09:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
First, let me say that it has was a pleasure working on that consensus question with you. Whether the result is strict adherence to the ATC system or, more likely, a consolidated version, I enjoyed collaborating on that text.
With that being said, regardless of the outcome, I think it may be helpful to have an ATC code to category conversion table so people can look up an ATC code and figure out which category it belongs. How does that idea sound to you? ---kilbad (talk) 18:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I just wanted to let the community know that there is a move to reorganize pharm article stubs at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals/2009/June. ---kilbad (talk) 12:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello
If you can insert the little more detail from the page u directed me to. I think you are professional and you know what you are talking about but if anyone who doesnt know much about the topic opens the article, at least he should know what it is all about.
I mean just a brief line describing ATCvet.
Thanks for your time...... Oniongas (talk) 20:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
These are well known attested roots from PIE. Any student of IE studies know these are IE roots. There are plenty of sources. Albanian numerals 1 through 10 and 20 are PIE roots as well as the Welsh forms are PIE roots. Just look in either Pokorny or Indo-European Numerals by Jadranka Gvozdanovic (Editor). I added the Gvozdanovic source as a reference. I removed the unsourced extinct language data like Dacian, Thracian, Illyrian. It is unsourced and most of the forms are disputed. Azalea pomp (talk) 21:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
i agree that if one deletes or adds content of an article or of a page then the reason should be provided for such edit. However, you activities seem also like a person who does not understand a topic but wants to seek creative attention as you did many times on the page "copulative verb". The information i placed was the important information to understand the basic linguistics. The rest of the information is non-linguistics but interesting. The page "copula" also a good page, but has been vandalized by few whose artistic side of minds also slightly of art of graffiti.
However, some of your information that you noted in finding edit errors are very useful.
Dear Anypodetos, I just noticed that he missed the copula on the sentence "The page 'copula' also a good page, but has been vandalized by few whose artistic side of minds also slightly of art of graffiti." Thus, 'is' should be added after the word copula and 'are' should be added after the word minds. Also, the comma should be avoided before the coordinating conjunction 'but' as the both clauses are not independent. Susan ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Susan White (talk • contribs) 02:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I have continued to work on the list of skin-related conditions, and recently nominated it for FL status. If available, your comments would be greatly appreciated at the nomination page. Regardless, thank you again for your work on wikipedia. ---kilbad (talk) 06:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi! I saw on IRC that you changed a box from ((chembox)) to ((drugbox)) (here). I understand and expect that that is a normal process, as there are undoubtedly pages which are more 'correct' with one than with the other ..
But .. That change has an effect on an effort that we have on Wikipedia, where we try to validate the data in these two infoboxes (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals/Chembox validation). Some of the pages have the data in a verified chembox, which is now not there anymore as it has moved to the drugbox .. which 'breaks' our bot ... (well, it just can't 'find' the verified data anymore).
CheMoBot is following both ((drugbox)) and ((chembox)), based on verified revids. For the Drugbox they are in Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology/Index, for chembox in Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals/Index. Some of the values in those boxes are checked against the official data (at the moment, it only involves the CAS-number, but there are other values which we will verify in the future, like e.g. boiling and melting points, etc.). CheMoBot checks whether editors are changing the CASNo in an edit, and if it is then the same as in the verified revid that is listed in said indexes.
In a way, it is a matter of updating the data in these indexes, and I would like to ask you if you were willing to help us in those cases where there is a verified revid (the best would be, delete the entry in the old list, and list a new revid with the current revid in the new list). Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Yep, the process is correct. Any help here would be greatly appreciated. There are also still many boxes out there which we would like to have verified (the bot is watching 9464 boxes!).
Hmm, I am ambivalent about the changes sometimes (and this is an example ..). Chembox does not have the ATCvet-code, but that could easily be added to the parameters. It has a module ((Chembox Pharmacology)), which took the same parameters as the drugbox, quite some time ago. And there are every now and then remarks to merge ((chembox)) and ((drugbox)) in some way. Also, for quite some compounds it is questionable if they need to have a drugbox, as the chemical part is (way) more important, or they are simply not drugs.
Would you have access to IRC? --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
(Oi, ATCvet needs to go into ((Chembox Identifiers)), of course.) --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I think I will do that when I get the time .. busy and almost holiday. Coding that will not be too difficult. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I added it to the Identifiers section. Parameter 'ATCvet'. That is given through to ((Chembox_ATCCode)) as parameter 'value4'. That one can be edited by you, it now accepts the value4, adding a simple Q to the ATC-code here and there. It may need some rewording, and maybe external links need to be adapted, could you have a look? --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed that the transrepression was on your "to do" list. I just converted this entry from a redirect to repression which I believe was quite misleading to an article about the ability of one protein to inhibit the ability of a second protein to upregulate gene expression. However there may be other uses of the term which I am less familiar. In addition, I am having trouble tracking down a definitive reference that documents who first coined this term and in what context (as currently stated in the article, I believe it is GR and AP-1, but I could be wrong). Any help that you could provide in refining or expanding this stub would be greatly appreciated. Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 19:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
We need an admin to close out that consensus question. Do you have any admin editors in mind? ---kilbad (talk) 12:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I have posted a reasonable solution to the regulator time line issues on the levaquin talk page (taking note of all the suggestions made thus far) that I believe addresses all issues raised here. This suggestion would apply to all of the fluoroquinolone drug specific articles. Those who have an interest should take a look and see what they think of what I have proposed.Davidtfull (talk) 19:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Royalbroil 20:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Real life stuff has been crazy lately. Give me two to three days to respond over at WP:PHARM:CAT. I apologize for the delay. ---kilbad (talk) 18:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Why do we need that? staurosporine is not a drug, never was or will be, though it might be a starting material for future drugs... AbuAmir (talk) 13:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Whoops my bad. Feel free to go ahead and fix it. And in the future, you really don't need to ask about things like this =) 16:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Hey there! If you have the time, check out page 24. I'd like to expand it myself, but things have again been hectic (and not in the best of ways). Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 05:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Before I forget:
![]() |
The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar |
For your extensive efforts towards implementing ATCvet codes and cleaning up the stubs left behind from this. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC) |
Hello. I've granted you access to the rollback tool. :) --Ixfd64 (talk) 18:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Mifamurtide at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Geraldk (talk) 23:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Materialscientist (talk) 12:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Out of curiousity, how did you come to know about mifamurtide? Remember (talk) 14:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
A discussion that could use your input: Talk:Metformin#Deletion of Trade Names. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Concerning putting the approved name first, please note that the approved UniProt protein name differs from the HUGO gene name. Therefore it would be more accurate to write:
Although I admit this is somewhat awkward. Your thoughts? Cheers. Boghog (talk) 12:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
(unindent) Yes, this gets rather confusing. The problem with:
is that it doesn't clearly distinguish between the gene and protein and their respective names (i.e., it literally reads "... <HGNC gene name> is a protein"). In this particular example, I think it would be more accurate to write:
since "cathepsin C" is listed as an alternate UniProt name. In addition, the more general term "protein" could be replaced with "enzyme". I need to think more carefully how to word this so that it is accurate, clear, concise, and can be implemented by a bot. Further suggestions are certainly welcome. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 13:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
From an italian user... Thank you! --Ceccomaster (talk) 12:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |